Plain packaging for tobacco..on its way

[Xt500]

That argument is quite hollow:

 

A pays some tax.

Thus he shouldn't have to pay all his tax,

because he already pays some tax.

 

You miss read it,i said he already pays his whack,likely far more than a non smoker.

[JFKvsNixon]

You miss read it,i said he already pays his whack,likely far more than a non smoker.

 

Who decides what their whack is?

[Xt500]

Who decides what their whack is?

 

The smoker when he finds alternatives

[aliceBB]

Ah. A moral relativist.

 

How very retro.

 

Any other laws that you choose to ignore?

 

We so need a 'like' button

 

On the topic itself...anything which reduces the appeal of cigarette smoking is worth doing. And it (plain packaging) must work, otherwise the pro-tobacco lobby wouldn't be getting their smoke-stained knickers in such a twist about it.

Edited January 22, 2015 by aliceBB

[Bonzo77]

It still has yet to be approved by MP's.

 

Australia have done it and initially saw a reduction when introduced. Figures now show that the numbers of smokers has now in fact risen despite plain packaging.

 

If its trying to stop young smokers then it will fail as its cost and not packaging they are interested in.

 

Australia didn't see a reduction as a result of this. The number of smokers continued to fall as normal, plus a further drop was due to the popularity of electronic cigarettes.

 

Plain packaging doesn't reduce numbers of smokers at all. All it does is remove an industry's identity and their last form or advertising.

 

All this will do is cause chaos for the poor staff in front of the gantries!

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 18:26 ----------

 

The criminals where tobacco is concerned are the thieving Taxmen, so im not going to pay £15 for a pouch of bacca when i can pay £7 , and keep the taxmans thieving hands off the other £8.

 

The criminal that sells drugs, TV's, sex slaves and unmarked bank notes is thieving from the tax man too. Why pay a grand for a TV when the bloke down the road does them for £500?

 

You're not just smoking fake, even more poisonous, cigarettes, but you're putting shop keepers out of business by supporting local criminals. Hope you're proud of yourself?

[aliceBB]

I don't buy the argument that by hitting the sales of tobacco products, this measure will cost jobs. The same could be said of the abolition of child labour, or stricter controls on the arms trade, or any other morally reprehensible (if not yet illegal) trade.

 

I've seen so much misery and horror from smoking, even just within my close family, that it wouldn't bother me if they legislated to outlaw the bloody stuff completely. Give all the nicotine addicts free e-cigs and help to wean themselves off it.

 

Just think of all the NHS resources it would free up.

[Bonzo77]

I don't buy the argument that by hitting the sales of tobacco products, this measure will cost jobs. The same could be said of the abolition of child labour, or stricter controls on the arms trade, or any other morally reprehensible (if not yet illegal) trade.

 

I've seen so much misery and horror from smoking, even just within my close family, that it wouldn't bother me if they legislated to outlaw the bloody stuff completely. Give all the nicotine addicts free e-cigs and help to wean themselves off it.

 

Just think of all the NHS resources it would free up.

 

Heart over head. If you've directly affected, you're understandably going to think like that. Ban smoking and the government will have a colossal funding gap and it'll be public services that see the brunt of that, namely the NHS!

 

Increasing the price has resulted in a growing illegal trade. Plain packaging will make forgeries even easier to do.

 

Also, many small shops in public housing estates make their money by stocking cigarettes. Not from the profit, but by getting customers into their shop who buy other things.

[aliceBB]

Heart over head

 

If you've directly affected, you're understandably going to think like that.

Not really. I am perhaps in a minority on this forum who take a long view on this. There was a phone in on the radio today about this topic, and all the pro-smoking lobby could come up with were the following points (the responses are demolishing their arguments are shown in italic afterwards):

 

In relation to smoking generally:

1. We like smoking, so we should be allowed to do it

Popularity does not make something right

 

2. We pay more in taxes than the NHS spends on treating smoking-related disease

False. Smokers like to think this, but the statistics they reach for are always based purely on end-stage lung cancer, emphysema and heart-disease. They do not take into account the cost of treating the effects of passive smoking, non-hospitalised bronchitis, low-level circulatory problems, or cancers of organs other than the lung whose prevalence is higher in smokers.

 

Also, if smokers were not paying tax on the tobacco they buy (always assuming they buy it in shops and not on the black market), they will have the money in their pockets and be free to spend it on other consumer goods, so the overall impact on revenue would be less than they claim.

]Ban smoking and the government will have a colossal funding gap and it'll be public services that see the brunt of that, namely the NHS!

See above

Increasing the price has resulted in a growing illegal trade. Plain packaging will make forgeries even easier to do.

Relying on tax from a toxic product which kills people is no way to run an economy

 

Also, many small shops in public housing estates make their money by stocking cigarettes. Not from the profit, but by getting customers into their shop who buy other things.

OK, so you make cigarettes available for the really addicted, only in chemists. Only 20% of the population smokes. 80% do not. If the small shops cannot make a profit from the 80% who do not, they are clearly not viable. You cannot justify smoking on the grounds that it keeps small shops in business. Edited January 22, 2015 by aliceBB

[Bonzo77]

Bit of a double edged sward here.

 

Philip Morrisis suing the Australian government over the plain packaging. This sort of thing could happen over here if the TTIP goes through.

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 20:52 ----------

 

Not really. I am perhaps in a minority on this forum who take a long view on this. There was a phone in on the radio today about this topic, and all the pro-smoking lobby could come up with were the following points (the responses are demolishing their arguments are shown in parentheses afterwards):

 

In relation to smoking generally:

1. We like smoking, so we should be allowed to do it

[Popularity does not make something right]

2. We pay more in taxes than the NHS spends on treating smoking-related disease

[False. Smokers like to think this, but the statistics they reach for are always based purely on end-stage lung cancer, emphysema and heart-disease. They do not take into account the cost of treating the effects of passive smoking, non-hospitalised bronchitis, low-level circulatory problems, or cancers of organs other than the lung whose prevalence is higher in smokers.

 

Also, if smokers were not paying tax on the tobacco they buy (always assuming they buy it in shops and not on the black market), they will have the money in their pockets and be free to spend it on other consumer goods, so the overall impact on revenue would be less than they claim.]

 

 

[see above]

 

[Relying on tax from a toxic product which kills people is no way to run an economy!]

 

[OK, so you make cigarettes available for the really addicted, only in chemists. Only 20% of the population smokes. 80% do not. If the small shops cannot make a profit from the 80% who do not, they are clearly not viable. You cannot justify smoking on the grounds that it keeps small shops in business].

 

No, you justify smoking by allowing people to choose what they want to do with their bodies. I know you don't agree with that, but that's something that you'll have to choose to ignore. There's plenty of other things that are bad for health that I don't do but I wouldn't stop people carrying them out.

 

Shop keepers are part of the bigger picture. They rely on passing trade from smokers, lottery players and alcohol purchases. I'm not using them to justify anything.

[aliceBB]

Bit of a double edged sward here.

 

Philip Morrisis suing the Australian government over the plain packaging. This sort of thing could happen over here if the TTIP goes through.

 

Absolutely agree. But that is not a reason not to do something, as a country, that you know is right.

 

Philip Morrisis suing the Australian government over the plain packaging. This sort of thing could happen over here if the TTIP goes through.

 

No, you justify smoking by allowing people to choose what they want to do with their bodies. I know you don't agree with that, but that's something that you'll have to choose to ignore. There's plenty of other things that are bad for health that I don't do but I wouldn't stop people carrying them out.

I don't think we have a choice. Either we have to persuade people to stop doing the things like overeating and smoking and not exercising, which are causing them to be ill and preventably dependent on the NHS, or we watch the NHS implode through lack of money. Seriously. The current level of self-abuse amongst the British is unsustainable and no government is going to commit to funding it to a level which would contain the problem. I wish they would, but they won't. The money could be available if they prioritised it above defence and education, but they won't. They could require all smokers/overeaters/motorbike riders to take out private health insurance, but somehow I doubt the private companies would be interested. No profit in smokers/obese people - they are too much of a risk.

 

Shop keepers are part of the bigger picture. They rely on passing trade from smokers, lottery players and alcohol purchases. I'm not using them to justify anything

Yes, you are. You said that if their tobacco sales fall, they risk going our of business. The lottery (when played responsibly) and alcohol (drunk in moderation) are not the same as tobacco in their impact on health. Edited January 22, 2015 by aliceBB